BuffaloBud Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 As a retired engineer can you tell me how 1000 tons of steel floats without any engines working? Oh wait, never mind. I forgot the "fabricated story" method of flotation. http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/boat.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Buoyancy & Displacement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 They should consider themselves lucky that they went on that cruise and not to this resort in Mexico. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linksfiend Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Fifty-one people? That's it!? I thought it was like a thousand! That's no tragedy! How many people do you lose on a normal cruise? Thirty!? Forty?! My favorite episode. "According to this, it took.. 10 hours. It eased into the water like an old man into a nice warm bath" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 As a retired engineer can you tell me how 1000 tons of steel floats without any engines working? Oh wait, never mind. I forgot the "fabricated story" method of flotation. Besides displacement... It will still take on more water when in motion or in heavy seas... Idle in clam seas... The vessel is almost watertight. The bilge pumps had back-up power no doubt... Very basic of coure. Still, the ship is not taking on water, so even better... Seals (not perfect, the seals are underwater) around the screws (no engine running) so even better chance of holding water. You think they would have had a bigger genset onboard? Or unless the distribution wiring was caput?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) Displacement. For your homework tonight, go home and fill your kitchen sink with water, grab a wide flat pan like a brownie pan, place it on the water and watch it float A light weight aluminum brownie pan compared to a 1000 ton steel ship? I did try it though and even the aluminum pan sank. In addition, you owe be a box of brownie mix, three eggs and some milk. Jerk. Besides displacement... It will still take on more water when in motion or in heavy seas... Idle in clam seas... The vessel is almost watertight. The bilge pumps had back-up power no doubt... Very basic of coure. Still, the ship is not taking on water, so even better... Seals (not perfect, the seals are underwater) around the screws (no engine running) so even better chance of holding water. You think they would have had a bigger genset onboard? Or unless the distribution wiring was caput?? These answers are a hoot. I have one guy talking about aluminum pans, several links to the Peter Pan site trying to fool me and then you ramble on incoherently about clam seas and seals. I am pretty sure the clams stay near the bottom so they are irrelevant to the discussions. The seals part was interesting but seals breath air. I'm supposed to believe they stayed underwater that whole time just to check on the screws? Sounds to me like more than one of those screws are loose in Illinois. Edited November 17, 2010 by ieatcrayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Besides displacement... It will still take on more water when in motion or in heavy seas... Idle in clam seas... The vessel is almost watertight. The bilge pumps had back-up power no doubt... Very basic of coure. Still, the ship is not taking on water, so even better... Seals (not perfect, the seals are underwater) around the screws (no engine running) so even better chance of holding water. You think they would have had a bigger genset onboard? Or unless the distribution wiring was caput?? I don't think bigger generators would have made a difference. I think there was a catastrophic explosion in one of the engines which also double as the main or service generators. Typically on a ship there are two separate enginerooms that can be isolated quickly in the event of a casualty. My guess is that they didn't isolate quickly enough (both electrically and mechanically) which allowed the damage to spread. The electrical distribution system was definitely affected by this which caused the loss of power to all non-vital equipment. With emergency power the ship still has communications, bilge pumps (which wouldn't be needed unless the ship hit something or the explosion caused a large salt water leak), emergency lighting, radars and power to vital areas of the ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 In addition, you owe be a box of brownie mix, three eggs and some milk. Jerk. Pillsbury, Duncan Hines, or everyone's favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spun Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 They towed it south and there it will sit for a while. http://web.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/16/carnival-cruise-ship-out-of-commission-until-janua/ And the Peter Pan life form still lurks... It just won't die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 As a retired engineer can you tell me how 1000 tons of steel floats without any engines working? Oh wait, never mind. I forgot the "fabricated story" method of flotation. Relativity. Einstein proved that mass and energy are the same thing. Therefore, when the engines are working and generating energy, they weigh more. THEREFORE, when they stopped working, the weight of the boat decreased, and it was still able to float. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts